Strange week

The last week has been a bit … er … busy. But, that didn't stop the questions flying around my head.

1. How does the press manage (a) to have the brass neck and (b) not to laugh when telling the rest of us that they alone should be accountable only to themselves? Everyone else must be regulated, reported on, “held to account”, but the press must be completely “free” – to shred people's lives with impunity. Leveson's recommendations on statutory underpinning were made precisely because no one trusts bodies that want to run their own regulation. The point of regulation is that it should be independent – and self-selecting bodies don't fit that bill.

2. Would Leveson create a Soviet scenario? Don't be ridiculous. Comparisons with Pravda are utter nonsense and the newspaper industry knows it. If any of these guys had ever read Pravda, they would know that like is not being compared with like.

3. Will the Archbishop of Canterbury ring the changes in and for the Church of England? Who knows? He needs the space to recover from the last couple of days and then get down to business. Tough call, but he will be backed by his bishops as the brown stuff is poured on him.

4. Whose agenda is running when the BBC report his sermon at Canterbury Cathedral yesterday and remark at the beginning that he didn't mention women bishops or gay marriage and conclude by saying that he won't be able to escape these issues for long? Remarkable! If he had referred to these issues, the church would have been accused of being obsessed with gender and sex; he didn't, so we are accused of running away from them for a day. It isn't the church that is obsessed with these issues to the exclusion of all else, is it?

5. Why did I sell my best fantasy league players and get stuck with the ones that get injured or earn me no points? Never, ever, take me on as a football manager.

I agree completely with you about the press regulation. I notice that the worst vitriol is coming from Rupert Murdoch – not sure that I’d count his opinion as unbiased and balanced. I think there is very little public sympathy for the press and it’s resistance to independent regulation. It keeps failing – it needs to be fixed and it’s the minimum fixing that’s being legislated for. I still think that where other laws are broken i.e. bribing police officers, then the person responsible needs to be facing the courts for this too. The suggested Royal Charter and legal underpinning is just something every employer/employee can measure against while they are working.

It was the first time I had watched an enthronement of an Archbishop of Canterbury. My husband commented at how ‘English’ it all felt to him. That was a positive comment as he thought that if it became ‘Americanised’ then it would be terrible – don’t let Sky anywhere near it then. I can’t say I was over impressed with the commentary during the service. There were shots of folk who I thought may have been significant but had no idea who they were. It was not an easy call for the BBC, I admit, as many would be joining in with the singing of hymns and the prayers in their living rooms.
The constant news stream at the bottom of the screen didn’t need to be there, it interfered with the titles and subtitles pertinent to the service. It could also have been used to indicate the significant guests we had glimpses of without interfering with the main business.
I agree the comments about the sermon were just pointless. I also winced when Huw Edwards (a Welshman, no less) said that Augustine brought Christianity to “these shores”. Yes, Augustine did come to the south of England with a mission to evangelise and found to his surprise that he was greeted by monks who were already here. It ignored the fact that Christianity had clung on and even thrived in parts of Britain before the Pope in Rome decided that Britannia needed to hear the Gospel once more.
One bright spot for me was the enthronement of Justin Welby by the Venerable Sheila Watson. It lightens my heart even today thinking about it!
May God bless the Archbishop as he goes onto the waves in the strength of the Lord.

Is it not the case that there have been times from Thomas A Becket’s time to today when the church has tried to insist that it should not be accountable to wider society and be subject to its own regulatory framework?

In some ways over the last few days, we have seen the power and the culture of the press collide with the compassion, grace and humility of the Church expressed in and through the words of the ABC – (not forgetting Pope Francis as well)

The press with all their ‘perceived power’ to try to control our lives, cultures and society on their shallow terms are powerless in the light and truth of the gospel words spoken by ++Justin yesterday. His courageous message ‘Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.’ Was a message that was far more in tune with the reality of our age than the press will ever proclaim. Let the press remain in their cosy little boat whilst the rest of us take up the invitation to courageously step out of the boat walk on water, and trust in God alone.

The CofE & Anglican Communion don’t always get it right, but yesterday was one of those moments when we glimpsed the beauty of unity in diversity expressed in loving community to the glory of God.

Re Kevin’s comments. surely ultimately the Church is accountable to Christ, whose Chuch it is. Which is a slightly different point from whether those holding office in the Church are accountable to the civil authority for civil offences. Christ himself recognised the dichotomy (Render unto Caesar…)., but the devil, as always is in the details of where the boundary lies, which is a bit more contextual. For example, it is hard to argue with the universal principle the Church fought for in the 11th century that Kings and Emperors should not appoint bishops. On the other hand, at least seen through the prism of hindsight (always dangerous, I grant) the nub of Beckett’s argument with Henry II a generation or two later that those with the benefit of clergy should not be liable in the King’s court (as opposed to the Church courts) for secular offences such as murder is a bit more difficult to swallow, and does not reflect the teaching of the church today. Which isn’t to say that in more recent times members of the ecclesiatical hierarchy have not fallen foul of the temptation to try and keep things quiet that they should not. But is that a failing of the Church, or of individuals within the Church? And that’s without getting into the question of whether respecting the civil authority on civil matters is quite the same thing as being accountable to wider society…

Heather, I do not buy any of the National Press, but I am very concerned that ” hard cases make bad law” -particularly given the impact that a deal cobbled together at 2am may have on Internet blogs.

A number of sound bloggers have written to the Guardian seeking protection for sites like this one, which could conceivably be taken down by a determined minority exercising harassing tactics using the proposals as currently drafted.

I am contemplating a double irony. The proposals as drawn may be struck down by the Europeand Court following application by Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers who thereby raise him to the pantheon of defenders of Press Freedom alongside William Cobbett JohnWilkes and Tom Payne. How weird would that feel?

Nick, I am rather concerned by the way you lump all “the press” together in paragraph 1. I agree that some papers have been guilty of the most appalling shredding of people’s lives, and probably all papers are guilty of sometimes fatuous misrepresentation. But the other side of the coin is that some papers have sought to use the freedom of the press in the right way, by exposing corruption. The Daily Telegraph’s exposure of the parliamentary expenses scandal is just one instance. That exposure of course has angered some who were at the receiving end, and it is by no means unreasonable to expect therefore that some politicians will be looking for any way possible to clamp down on press freedom. I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances of difference in what parliament and press wanted, but I do think we need to be very much aware of the possibility of watering down press freedom, and the dangers that would bring.

I agree that we must be careful when we change rules that interfere with press freedom. Sadly, the press, especially the tabloids, have so abused their freedom that they felt they were above the law and untouchable.
Whichever path the politicians (and the public) choose in the end, they all have their pitfalls. I suspect much of this will be tested in the court system at one time or another.
I don’t think your take on the matter is unreasonable and we should be on the lookout for a swing in the opposite direction. I can just understand that the press have been left to self-regulate after a number of scandals and promises to stop abuses and it hasn’t happened. The public generally have said ‘enough’.
I vote with my feet, so to speak, and don’t buy the tabloids or any gossip magazines and try not to touch anything that Rupert Murdoch is likely to profit by. Having a picture of him championing press freedom at the EU court of human rights in the future……I’ll have to think about that one.

Sadly Interest rules. And the interests the Barclay brothers who avoid UK taxes either in Monaco or on Brecqhou in the Channel Islands perceive to be theirs are clear from their chosen residence. In practice the Telegraph is anti government and the British state: that is why they fenced the unredacted stolen material from the House of Commons Fees Office about MPs’ expenses.
.
Likewise at least one of the loudest blogs against any regulation of the press (let alone the media) was registered in the West Indies, albeit principally to make it difficult to sue the owner rather than to avoid tax I understand.
.
Newspapers and some extreme right wing blogs want the right to lie with relative impunity and the proposed law is too mild and moderate in my view. The Labour Leader at the previous election was eviscerated by abuse online, and by lies as to fact which are still being refuted as our economy stultifies.
.
And yet they persist in their Lies, some set out here:http://labourlist.org/2013/03/news-international-have-issued-eight-corrections-to-stories-about-gordon-brownin-just-six-months/ Rupert Murdoch to take the strongest example owns 37% of out national press, and lives in California: the USA insists that those who own their national media share at least some interest in Their country and live there!
.
Reasonable in view of such persistent lies for not just corrections to be carried by the relevant newspapers (once a lie is out corrections never catch up! even if of equal size and prominence) but for a banner to be carried by all NI media here proclaiming their dishonesty and its intended bias. Let propaganda be so labelled and also carry VAT.
.
Notable also that the BBC acts increasingly like a derivative of the foreign owned right wing media, advertising two new News24 programmes per day based … on the newspapers! How desperate are the billionaires to retain power, and how desperate is the BBC to palliate them?
.
Fear Not Bishop Nick! It’s not about you and your blog, I wish it were. The threat to the powers that be is exposure of another kind.

It’s the threat to blogs like this one that truly worry me. I think “legislation” cooked up like this one at 2am has a real risk of ” unintended consequences” and in these days of militant secularism we should not discount a converted effort against “inaccuracy” or ” prejudice” being alleged against orthodox -and less orthodox Christians. I wonder how many blogs would close or not open because they could not afford to join a system designed for The Sun or not feel able to risk running outside it?

If it is true that none of the abuses of which we complain would be caught by this ” reform” then I begin to think like Henry Ford ” Include me out”.

I guess I just don’t trust any politician especially as they claim virtue.

I agree, Martin, that legislation of any kind can have unexpected consequences. We’ll need to monitor if this proposed legislation really does help the ‘victims’ rather than those in power, whether politician, police or media owner. If it continues to protect those with money and influence so that they can flout the law whatever they do or say then we have to revisit and revise. The online situation is a more complex one and more difficult for governments to control unless you are the Chinese government and are controlling all media at source, including Google.

As for your mistrust of any politician, then it brought to mind my old history teacher who said to us once “There is no such thing as an honest politician – Discuss!” I think it is harder for a politician once they are part of the government, or sometimes just the party machine, to work with their conscience and with virtue. I always know when I receive a reply from my MP whether he’s just towing the government line or offering his own individual opinion. But i always try to apply the verse “Be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove” when I am trying to discern what politicians are trying to persuade us to do or vote for. Which is something I will have to keep close to the front of my brain as 18th September 2014 comes along!

There seem to be widespread misunderstandings about the agreement between the three main political parties and the representatives of those who were wronged in the hacking etc scandals. Politicians are not unused to working late at night at the House of Commons of course.
.
The New Statesman gave credit to the (Tory imo) site Politics Home for this, listing the concessions made on David Cameron’s behalf (he has taken a line more favourable to Rupert Murdoch and press Barons):
.
.-That the Royal Charter will be underpinned by law, so that it can only be amended by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, rather than by ministers at will.
.
-That the press will not be able to veto appointments to the board of the new industry regulator.
.
-That the independent regulator will have the power to “direct” how newspaper apologies are made, rather than merely “requiring” them to be made. Papers, for instance, will be ordered to publish front page corrections, rather than bury them elsewhere.
.
Not quite a prescription for Soviet style Pravda, nor an attempt to stifle debate on Nick Baines’ blog. I worked online with a market research firm’s office in Slovakia. We discovered that emails were regularly intercepted and delayed in 2009 by the member of their staff who had been an officer in the Slovak Intelligence service, just habitually. Here one would suspect the media rather than MI6. People who are given to quoting Orwell, thankfully, rarely know what they are talking about.

It seems to me that whilst the churches wriggle their way from one legal opt-out to another (and basically saying that the law as it applies to everyone else will apply differently to the churches) it makes it significantly more difficult for good people in the church to make a serious case against other institutions trying to provide their own regulatory framework.

Generally speaking, I find that people are shocked to think that the churches do not bear the same accountability in society as other institutions in ensuring that our common life is free from prejudice and discrimination.

It is still the case that stories are being uncovered in the churches in areas of safeguarding where a culture of not being accountable to civil authority enabled terrible abuses to happen.

As the recent cartoon in Private Eye had it, when St Patrick wanted to move the snakes from Ireland he tried moving them from one parish to another, hoping the problem would go away.

One of the things which surely helped to bring about situations where abuse happened in the church was the idea that the church had its own regulatory framework and simply was not subject to legal authority in the same way as other institutions. Though I thought that David Starkey’s comment last week that Thomas a Becket should be regarded as the patron saint of child abusers was crass and insensitive, I couldn’t deny that he did have a point that we might usefully reflect on. In many ways, the Becket controversy (how much should the Church be subject to the State?) is still with us.